Bush ready to start WWIII

lion_crazz

Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
So go relish your victory in chasing away someone else. If I wanted this kind of abuse, I'd go back to Nam and volunteer for a POW camp. It would be less painful.
Wow, I can't believe someone would say the things you have. You really should be ashamed of yourself. The things you have said on this thread have been outrageous and unbelievable...
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
I'll ask AGAIN. If Clinton screwed up the military so bad, why hasn't Bush fixed it? He's had 8 years to do it, with a Congress to back him.
[Federal Register: May 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 94)]
[Notices]
[Page 27545-27546]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16my07-47]
[[Page 27545]]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Preparation of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
(PEIS) for the Growth of the United States Army
AGENCY: Department of the Army, DOD
ACTION: Notice of intent.

[hr]
SUMMARY: The President of the United States has directed the growth of
the United States Army. In an unpredictable and rapidly changing global
security environment, this directive is designed to ensure the Nation
has the ground forces necessary to meet its strategic security and
defense needs. These needs, as outlined in the National Security
Strategy, include the disruption of terrorist networks, the prevention
of nuclear proliferation, the support of peace and regional stability,
the denial of rogue Nation support to terrorist organizations, and the
promotion and advancement of democratic forms of government. The
President has determined that the implementation of these security
goals in the 21st century will require increased numbers of U.S. Army
forces to sustain the military operaitons required to support these
objectives. The Army, therefore, intends to prepare a PEIS to analyze
alternatives for executing the Presidentially directed growth required
to support the defense and security missions of the Nation in the 21st
century.
The Presidential decision directs the Army to add 74,200 active and
reserve component Soldiers to its total end strength. This growth
includes the addition of six Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) and the combat
support (CS) and combat service support (CSS) units required to support
them. In addition, the growth of the force will include ``right
sizing'' or rebalancing the Army force structure to add increaed
numbers of high demand critical skills which have been identified as
shortfalls. Military skills, such as military police, engineers, and
explosive ordnance detachments, must be added to the force in greater
numbers to meet the increased needs for these types of units in
operational theaters abroad. Rebalancing of the Army's force is needed
to ensure the Army has the proper capabilities to sustain operations
for promoting global and national security now and into the foreseeable
future.
In addition to this growth, the Army recognizes the need to
continue with initiatives to restructure its forces to implement the
standard modular unit configurations directed by the Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR) in 2001 and 2006. Modularity is a critical
component of Army Transformation and the Army continues to implement
the QDR directive to standardize its units and their force structure.
This standardization of Army force structure will continue to improve
management and generate increased operational efficiencies within the
Army. Stationing actions supporting modularity will be evaluated and
considered in conjunction with stationing actions required to support
Army growth.........................................
 

scubadoo

Active Member
Originally Posted by rudedog40
I'll ask AGAIN. If Clinton screwed up the military so bad, why hasn't Bush fixed it? He's had 8 years to do it, with a Congress to back him.
WASHINGTON –
Expanding the size of US armed forces could be an expensive and lengthy task - in essence, a redoubling of the national effort to grapple with the challenge posed by Islamic extremism.
The move would be irrelevant in the Iraq war, say some critics, because by the time more troops are recruited, trained, and deployed, the conflict there will probably be set in its course.
BUSH: He wants a bigger US military.
RON EDMONDS/AP
But in calling for such an increase, President Bush said the US military must be positioned to deal with terrorists for a generation to come.
"It's the calling of our time," he said at a press conference Wednesday.
Mr. Bush has not specified the degree to which he believes the Army and Marine Corps should increase. New Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, currently in Iraq, first must propose a plan that includes numbers and estimated cost, Bush said at his news conference and in an earlier interview with The Washington Post.
If approved by Bush, the plan will then be tucked into the budget the administration will submit to Congress early next year.
Currently, the Army has an authorized strength of some 514,000 troops, with about 30,000 of that total a temporary rise approved by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The Marine Corps has 180,000 personnel.
Bush was careful to note that he was not telegraphing an increase in troops in Iraq by asking for an overall larger US ground force. The administration's new strategy to fight rising violence there won't be unveiled until early next year.
Instead, Bush billed a larger US military as essential for the security of today's children and their children.
"Securing this peaceful future is going to require a sustained commitment from the American people and our military," said Bush
 

mfp1016

Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
That was putting it kindly
Like everyone has more than explicitly pointed out, the guy has some outrage at the Vietnam War, rightfully so. But he went so far as to be flat out disrespectful to his peers, myself included. Personally, I am willing to agree to disagree; however I know several veterans of the same war that would probably just punch him (though I wouldn't consider that the best thing to do, just pointing it out). I feel I put it rather kindly in describing the attitude and feelings I was left with after reviewing his posts. I suppose I didn't term it eloquently enough for you.
Quite frankly though, I was/am pretty tired of the I'm a Vet-Card. Please, don't forget that Veteran does not equate to infantry. I believe if you look into it, about 50% of the military during the Vietnam War was strictly used as support. For example, mechanics, food inspectors, nursing, supply management, etc.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by jennythebugg
this one went bad fast didn't it?

LOL, you should read the 19+ pages of the other thread...
Haven't seen you around recently. How are ya?
 
Top